Are We Asking The Right Questions About Climate Change?
In two recent TNT Radio interviews with Ron Barmby, author of “Sunlight on Climate Change: A Heretic’s Guide to Global Climate Hysteria” and a featured Climate Change Dispatch writer, he suggests that we have become bogged down in the wrong debate.
In the cultural battlefield that includes the polarized climate-change debate, we should pause to consider if we are even asking the relevant questions.
The Earth is Not a Greenhouse
On Deprogram with Michael Parker (May 26), the host asked Barmby if we are in a ‘climate crisis‘ and his answer, “No”, was an eye-opener. Barmby goes on to explain his reasoning.
A professional engineer who holds Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, Barmby easily explains the only commonality between greenhouse and the greenhouse-gas effect is the word greenhouse.
Once you shift the question and ask how the physics of a greenhouse-gas work, it becomes apparent that there is a limit to the global warming allegedly caused by carbon dioxide. Barmby says it is easy to calculate that limit and it’s not a crisis.
Stop Terrorizing The Children
Barmby also joined Joseph Arthur and His Technicolor Dreamcast (June 4) where it was pointed out that most people believe there is a ‘climate crisis’ because of the media and political indoctrination.
Arthur wanted to know how to get people to talk about climate-change physics rationally without losing friendships.
Barmby discusses his approach and how the current indoctrination is only scaring children (and a good number of adults). Both sides should agree to stop terrorizing kids.
Then we can discuss how decarbonization policies won’t affect the climate but will rob our youngest of future opportunities and prosperity.
Rather than a counterattack to undo a generational and global indoctrination based on fear, it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
Ron Barmby (www.ronaldbarmby.ca) has come up with his own definition of heretic that is well suited to an engineer immersed in the climate debate. He says he is not a denier because he is not rejecting what has been proven; he is a heretic because he is questioning what has NOT been proven but has become a matter of faith. You can purchase “Sunlight on Climate Change: A Heretic’s Guide to Global Climate Hysteria” at Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
Cross-posted from Climate Change Dispatch
Trackback from your site.
Chris*
| #
I applaud anyone who makes an effort to untangle the morass of mis- information and you are right; they are scaring the kids and their mothers.
I have taken to explaining that CO2 and oxygen are kept in a balance in the atmosphere by biological processes. As both terrestrial and marine plants take in CO2 to make carbohydrates the excess unused oxygen molecule which comes from water is released into the atmosphere. If plants are not taking Co2 from the atmosphere then they are not producing free oxygen . If CO2 levels go down then oxygen levels must also go down. Fortunately volcanos, tectonic movement and serious bushfires such as Australia’s, give our atmosphere a CO2 boost. Phytoplankton grab this CO2 and in return produce precious free oxygen. It seems to me that people ‘know’ this but don’t actually ‘see’ the connections to life on Earth.
Reply
Ron Barmby
| #
Thank-you Chris! My book explains the science of climate change in understandable terms for the intelligent but non-scientific reader. The theme is based on Immanuel Kant’s 1784 challenge for the Age of Enlightenment “Dare to know. Have the courage to use your own understanding.”
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Chris* and PSI Readers,
Chris*, very good comment. Here are my thoughts on this topic.
“In the cultural battlefield” (Thomas Richard) Copernicus (1473-1543) fired the first shot of this cultural war which exists between SCIENTISTS and PHILOSOPHERS. GOOD SCIENTISTS believe the source of knowledge is what they can OBSERVE and GOOD PHILOSOPHERS believe the source of knowledge is what they can REASON LOGICALLY.
Richard wrote: “Barmby says it is easy to calculate that limit and it’s not a crisis.” It is probably TRUE that Barm said this; but it is a LIE that any human can calculate “that limit”. For no human can SEE all the factors that one needs to SEE to calculate that limit. We (humans) can only SEE common factors which absolutely prove that accepted scientific ideas are ABSOLUTELY WRONG, if they are wrong.
And Galileo first demonstrated, for US GOOD SCIENTISTS, how he had proven, without any doubt, that the EARTH DOES NOT STANDSTILL. And Galileo clearly understood that there was a WAR between SCIENCE and PHILOSOPHY.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Ron Barmby
| #
Jerry, The limit is specific to the greenhouse gas effect of only carbon dioxide, which Richard captured faithfully in his comments. Even the IPCC acknowledges, as set out by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, that the relationship between global warming and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has to double each time to get the same global warming. That makes calculating the limit of CO2 caused global warming easy to calculate, as at some point it is too small to matter. I did not address all the other factors which contribute to climate change, which I agree we do understand. My comments were clear and specific to CO2 as that is the focus of the failed decarbonization attempts we are witnessing in California and Europe. I hope this helps clear up the misunderstanding.
Reply
Ron Barmby
| #
My apologies for a typo above. I agree with Jerry that we do NOT understand all the factors that go into climate change.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry. This is one of the most incisive comments of yours I have read.
One generic question I have for climate alarmists is ‘what is the optimum concentration for CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere?’
Supplementary question. How low can CO2 concentration get before most life on Earth dies? ( Answer. 150 parts per million can fail to support photosynthesis give or take a few mammalian exhalations.)
Thank you. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt.
I had to look up the definition of incisive as I have never used the word.
I have long understood that SCIENTISTS’ beginning with Galileo’ have knocked the PHILOSOPHERS off of their INTELLECTUAL PEDESTAL. For it was Aristotle and his buddies who first decided that the Earth did not move, not the Pope.
I ask: Why did Einstein became a patent clerk? I read and believe his academic professors, who awarded him a doctorate, did not consider him INTELLIGENT enough to become a professor. And I read that Einstein himself stated: “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.” It seems to me that the PHILOSOPHER types have an EGO problems and are continually trying chop GOOD SCIENTISTS down to their sizes. For have never read the PHILOSOPHER types state that they could not reason the truth as the SCIENTIST EINSTEIN stated: “No amount experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
So it bothers me, that my FRIEND MattH, does not exclaim loudly and clearly: Forget about the greenhouse effect because the troposphere’s air temperature.has never been measured to be less than troposphere’s dew point temperature measured at the same place and time. And in the rare, rare case, when the air temperature is measured to be a degree less than the measured dew point temperature, they seem to forget that the prediction of the greenhouse effect is that without atmospheric carbon dioxide the atmosphere’s temperature would be 33C (58F) less than the air temperature actually measured.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
The calculation of the effect of CO2 on GMST is easy. It is zero and this can be demonstrated. RGHE as a force DOES NOT EXIST. Stop giving credence to people by pretending the force exists when it does not.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Absolutely correct, Geraint!
First, the theories of Arrhenius regarding CO2 mysteriously cannot be duplicated in a laboratory. If CO2 Greenhouse Gas Theory was demonstrable, then every eco-activist would do so.
Second,. Mr. Barmby clearly does not understand radiational heat transfer. A gas particle at 8,000 ft elevation, top of most cumulus clouds, is freezing. How exactly do frozen snowflakes radiate energy to warm the Earth?
It does not matter whether the particle is H2O, CO2, ping-pong balls, or lead bricks. Cold objects cannot ever increase the temperature of a warmer object.
Thermodynamics 101.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Also, contrary to the falsehoods spread by the proponents of CO2 Theory, all gases do in fact emit radiation.
The Sun is composed of mostly Hydrogen and Helium, yet manages to emit billions of watts of radiational energy. Shocking!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
The answer to you question is that in the troposphere the primary transfer of energy is by convection (collisions) not radiation. Collisions follow the law of conservation of momentum (M1V1 + M2V2 = M1V3 + M2V4) where the matter with the greater velocity will transfer velocity/energy to the object with less velocity/energy regardless of their difference in mass. Since “hot” is more kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) it is possible for a high velocity light gas molecule to transfer energy (heat) to large object with less velocity even though the larger object has more kinetic energy. See my article in PSI “How Cold Heats Hot”.
Herb
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Herb,
Yes, true. Now let’s follow this logically.
There are 10,000 particles in a box of atmospheric gas. Suddenly, the 4 out of 10,000 particles, named CO2, get excited and increase temperature from -8 C up to a balmy -7.9 C. Then those 4 gas particles heat up the 10,000 which they are bumping into, colliding with.
Please, ask a climatologist to calculate this new increased atmospheric temperature, and radiational heat transfer?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi kevin,
The atmosphere is not just gases but also contains water droplets which are very good at absorbing energy. This means even though the water is “hotter” it will still absorb energy (get hotter) when struck by gas molecules because of their higher velocity. It is water in the troposphere that controls the flow of energy
Water absorbs energy/heat on the surface of the Earth. When it evaporates, it then carries that energy high in the atmosphere, where it is released during condensation, to be radiated into space. The Earth sweats and there is far more water in the atmosphere than CO2 (Knut Angstrom). The imaginary blocking of the flow of heat by CO2 would be insignificant to zero compared to the cooling done by water.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, Kevin, Geraint, Ron and/or MattH
What is the cause of twilight?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Twilight is the trapping of visible light by CO2 in the atmosphere. It is absolute proof of man made global warming and we are all going to die in 1040 days unless we chain ourselves to tennis nets and scream blah blah blah like Greta. (pathetic satire)
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry and readers.
Astronomical twilight is when the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon, or less.
Nautical twilight 12 degrees or less. Civil twilight 6 degrees or less.
Nautical twilight means enough light for old time sailors to leave port and civil is light enough to drive a car without lights on.
Twilight is the illumination of the lower atmosphere when the Sun is not directly visible because it is below the horizon. Twilight is produced by sunlight scattering in the upper atmosphere, illuminating the lower atmosphere so that Earth’s surface is neither completely lit nor completely dark. The word twilight is also used to denote the periods of time when this illumination occurs.[
That is enough homework for me for this month thanks Jerry.
Regards Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Very, very good! “Twilight is produced by sunlight scattering in the upper atmosphere.”
Now, research this phenomenon of light (radiation) scattering. Other readers many help Matt.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Or better yet, explain the probable cause of the difference between Nautical twilight and Civil twilight. Which I doubt you might read about.. Since Matt wrote: “That is enough homework for me for this month.” Could some reader help us out so we don’t have to wait another month for Matt’s answer.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
lloyd
| #
Zionist conspiracy at Uvalde? Fake shooting, so I guess no one was killed by the gunman? I really suggest you have your Meds adjusted.
Reply